Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay of 171 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits due to the delay. The assessee cited medical reasons and being abroad as causes for the delay. The Tribunal found the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the 171-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing medical reasons and being abroad. The Tribunal relied on the Apex Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable due to medical reasons and being abroad, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 144, 144B, 69, 115BBE, 249(3), 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M:
Instant appeal of the assessee is preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2015-16, date of order 30.11.2023.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (in brevity the ld. ‘AO’),passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 read with section 144 & 144B of the Act, date of order 03/03/2023.
2 ITA No.49 /Mum/2024 Sheetal Nilesh Sonawane
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, holding the appeal to be inadmissible on account of delay of 171 days in filing of appeal, not appreciating that the difficulties faced by the appellant on account of grave medical illness and her being abroad, constituted sufficient cause as mandated by section 249(3) of the I. Tax Act 1961 and therefore the delay in filing of appeal before the Hon. CIT(A) may kindly be condoned and the appeal be directed to be decided on merits.
The addition of Rs.1,36,15,000/- made by the Id AO as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961, on account of purchase of flat no 801, Dandelia, Village Chitalsar-Manpada, Thane (West), is unjustified as the name of the appellant is included in the purchase agreement as a matter of security only and that the entire investment in purchase of the said flat is made by the husband of the appellant, which fact is supported by documentary evidences and his source of funds fully explainable and for this reason the addition of Rs.1,36,15,000/- in the hands of the appellant is not appropriate by law and therefore the said addition is required to be deleted.
The addition of Rs.1,36,15,000/- made by the Id AO as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I. T. Act, 1961, on account of purchase of flat no 801, Dandelia, Village Chitalsar-Manpada, Thane (West), is uncalled for as the actual investment made towards purchase of the said flat in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 is of Rs.31,86,668/- only, the entire investment being made by the husband of the appellant and therefore the addition of Rs. 1,36,15,000/- in the hands of the appellant for the year under appeal is unjustified and uncalled for and bears to be deleted.”
3 ITA No.49 /Mum/2024 Sheetal Nilesh Sonawane 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-filer of the Income-tax return, purchased the immovable property amounting to Rs.1,28,16,000/-in impugned assessment year. The notice under section 148A of the Act was issued and the compliances are completed. Finally, the ld.Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed exparte and addition was confirmed amount to Rs.1,28,16,000/- related to purchase of immovable property from undisclosed sources and addition amount to Rs.7,99,000/- related to registration charges. Total amount works out to Rs.1,36,15,000/- which is added back with the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act with chargeable to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 171 days. Ld.CIT(A) rejected the petition of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed an appeal before us. 4. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed the appeal petition before ld. CIT(A) with the delay of 171 days. The appeal petition was rejected on the ground of condonation of delay. The observation of the Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as below: -
“6.2. CONDONATION OF DELAY The time limit for filing of appeal u/s. 249 (2) was available to the appellant till 02.04.23. It is seen that the appellant vide Form No 35 filed the appeal on 20.09.2023 with a delay of 171 days. 6.3 During the appeal proceedings, the appellant was given various opportunities to file submission. The following hearing notices/letters were issued to appellant as under; 1. Hearing letter dated 25.09.2023 2. Hearing letter dated 04.10.2023. 3. Hearing letter dated 16.10.202&
4 ITA No.49 /Mum/2024 Sheetal Nilesh Sonawane
5 ITA No.49 /Mum/2024 Sheetal Nilesh Sonawane The appellant has mentioned the reason for the delay in filing appeal in Form no 35 which was filled along with appeal on 20.09.2023 as under:- "Condo-nation in delay in fling the appeal My assessment order under section 147 w. r. s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act v/as completed on 03.03.2023. However, as per profile record my e-mail ID and mobile no. are not correct as well as latest. Further due to bad and medical health condition I could not receive all these documents till the last week of August, 2023. The separate letter of my medical health and relevant hospital bills are enclosed herewith. I therefore kindly request you to condone the delay in fling the appeal and do the needful." Further, In response to the above notices the appellant filed submission from as under:- 1. Medical report 2. Statement of Account. 3. Bank Statement. 4. Passport/ Visa 5. Statement of Income Ay 2015116. 6. Purchase Agreement.”
The assessee filed the condonation petition with explanation and the medical report of the assessee. The ld. AR further explained that due to medical health condition, the assessee was unable to comply with the notices and delayed the filing of appeal before the authority. Ld. CIT(A) has incorporated all these explanations in his order. The details summary of events with reason for delay in filing appeal supported by medical documents are annexed in APB pages 2 to 22 by the assessee. In our considered view, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee for condonation of delay of 171 days and the assessee explained the delay properly. In this respect we respectfully relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. MST. Kattiji Ors. Reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: -
“Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality
6 ITA No.49 /Mum/2024 Sheetal Nilesh Sonawane before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing, and passing-on- the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on merit is in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.
The Ld.AR only argued in relation to condonation of delay. No other grounds are pressed. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned appeal order and remand back all grounds of appeal before the file of the ld. CIT(A). We direct the appellate authority to condone the delay, accept the assessee’s appeal for hearing and a speaking order should be passed. Here, we are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the appeal proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.49/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th day of June 2024. Sd/- sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, दिन ांक/Dated: 06/06/2024 Pavanan
7 ITA No.49 /Mum/2024 Sheetal Nilesh Sonawane Copy of the Order forwarded to: अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयुक्त CIT 3. दवभ गीयप्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, 4. Mumbai ग र्डफ इल/Guard file. 5.
BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai